- (1.) Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent though the case has been called in revised. Hence, this Court proceed ex parte against respondent. This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has arisen at the instance of plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1989 passed by Sri Hari Shanker Lal Srivastava, First Additional District Judge, Jaunpur whereby partly allowing the appeal, Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") has set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court insofar as it had directed defendant-respondent to execute sale-deed in respect to plots in dispute in favour of plaintiff, but simultaneously has directed defendant-respondent to refund Rs. 4,000/- which was received as earnest money, alongwith interest, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, to plaintiff-appellant.
(2.) After hearing the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. on 31.3.1987, this Court found adjudication of the following substantial questions of law having arisen, in this appeal: "(A) Whether the Appellate Court having confirmed findings of Trial Court about genuineness of agreement was right in refusing relief of granting execution of sale-deed simply on the ground of identifiably and when there was only slight reduction of area of only two plots? (B) Whether any permission was required when the agreement was with regard to sale of land after the consolidation was over within a period of five years. (C) Whether absence of permission creates any bar for entering into an agreement and sale also specially by Court?"
(3.) Subsequently, vide order dated 30.10.2014, one more substantial question of law was formulated as under: "(D) Whether the lower appellate Court can dismiss the relief for specific performance granted by trial Court when no appeal was preferred by Defendant-Appellant against the grant of relief for specific performance by trial Court.";